I believe I have been fairly consistent in claiming that I would probably be okay with voting for Walker, but he is not my first choice. He has a record of fighting liberals and winning in a purple state on economic issues, HUGE plus mark for him. However, I have a hard time believing he is conservative across the spectrum. In many ways it is difficult to compare a senator with a governor, fair enough. This does mean though that each has his own ways to demonstrate his commitment to conservative principles, one at the state level, one at the federal level.
Right now there is a firestorm raging over Indiana’s RFRA. Walker’s comments on the matter basically say “That’s not a fight worth having.” See here. So when choosing a president who will appoint justices that will determine whether I am constitutionally obliged to labor in ways I do not wish (I believe there is a term for that, but I can’t remember what it is), why should I believe Walker will represent my interests?
If there are three legs (economic, social, national security) we can legitimately say that a governor cannot be measured on national security. However instead of Walker saying “I am going to request the legislature draft an RFRA for Wisconsin” he says “I don’t think there are any plans for such a bill here.” This advertises to the world that he has agreed not to fight for social conservatism. In short he has now demonstrated his commitment to one leg.
By the way, I know this is immediately after a different diary, but I wanted to put it out there. Why should a social conservative trust Walker?